Main menu

On Asking Experts, Part Two, Or, What's An LBGT Voter To Do?

Submitted by fake consultant on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 20:34

It’s been a few days now since we began a conversation that addresses the issue of how frustrated some number of LBGT voters are with the Democratic Party this cycle; this because they find themselves either frustrated at the lack of progress on the civil rights issues that matter to them, or because they see both the Democratic and Republican Parties as unreliable partners in the struggle to assure equal rights for all.

In an effort to practice some actual journalism, I assembled a version of an online “focus group” at The Bilerico Project (“daily adventures in LBGTQ”), with the goal of gathering some opinions on this subject in the actual words of those frustrated voters.

Part One of this story focused on “stating the problem”, and today we’ll take on Part Two: in this environment, with Election Day staring us in the face, what is an LBGT voter to do?

As before, there are a variety of opinions, including a very informative comment I was able to obtain from a genuine Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania’s 8th District, and that means until the very end you won’t hear much from me, except to help “set the stage” for the comments that follow.

We’ll begin today’s discussion with a housekeeping note: in order to keep the story moving in a linear fashion, from one topic to the next, in some instances I edited portions of multiple comments from the same person into one comment. I also edited some comments for length.

The disclaimer out of the way, let’s start the conversation with Zoe Brain, who sums up Part One rather neatly in one comment that absolutely did not have to be edited together:

We had a Dem super-majority in the Senate.
We had a Dem majority in the House.
We had a Dem president.

It wasn't enough. We need more. So let's use the only weapons we have for behaviour modification; our money and our votes, to make sure that the next time this can possibly happen, around 2020 (though 2028 is more likely), we won't have a repeat performance.

Andrew W responds with a bit of legislative “nuance”...and in doing so, he makes the point that looking beyond Democrats for solutions may be the way to go:

A "Democratic Super Majority" is different than an LGBT-Majority. We have never had an LGBT super majority. In the current US Senate we have only 56 votes. After November we will have 51 or 52 votes.

Stop saying "Democrats." It misses the point. Our challenge is to find 60 US Senators that support our equality.

SoFloMo makes a similar point:

Perhaps we have become too comfortable surrounding ourselves with other gay folks and straight allies. We're terrified of losing the only friends we've had in politics, so we cling to them despite the abuse.

We need to encourage one another turn our outrage into concrete action. Just feeling bad won't do any good.

Here’s some more from Andrew W:

We spend way to much talking about the "Religious Right," bigotry exists in anyone that accepts the traditional Christian belief that we are wrong. That's 70% of Black voters and they are primarily Democrats...

... We need people as our allies, not organizations. We need to educate, enlighten and enroll our neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. Two-thirds will support our equality - especially if we leave religion and politics out of the conversation. Both religion and politics divide people - we just want to ask people to stand for one thing, our equality.

Try it out over the next week. You'll be surprised.

So let’s get to the big issue: vote, or don’t?

Here’s Bill Perdue’s take on the question...

On Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010...vote left or cast your protest vote by sitting it out (barring important referenda, propositions or initiatives).

The only good vote is a protest vote. In a system run by competing gangs of like minded hustlers voting is not important except as a way of validating that system....

...It's a fool's errand to believe that participation in a rigged electoral system is the way to change. It's the road to perpetual lesserevilism, betrayal and defeat.

Elections can be used to organize and educate movements in struggle but elections don't bring change except in the sense that they (rarely) ratify changes forced by mass actions in the streets, workplaces and barracks. Those are the kind of battles we can win and those are the kind of battles that produce fundamental, permanent change as opposed to hopey-changey.

...followed by Andrew W:

While "mass demonstrations" may sound appealing or possibly effective, they aren't going to happen. The biggest crowd in D.C. is likely to be for two cable-tv comedians at the end of this month.

Polling data indicates the religious grip on "beliefs" (including the traditional Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong) is weakening. Of all those that define themselves as "religious" only about one-third are "literalists" and I would suggest their beliefs are virtually unchangeable. I'm not suggesting we try to change those minds, but rather we marginalize them by enrolling the other two-thirds. Most of them will put equality before religion.

The other dynamic is age - we are much more likely to get support from those under the age of 40 because they are less religious.

We need the young people that put Obama in office to turn out on November 2nd. Unfortunately, many in this audience have heard the GetEQUAL [a pro-civil rights group] narrative that "Obama didn't keep his promises." Young people are likely to believe that "we're angry" and not vote...

GrrrlRomeo has some thoughts as well:

The second thing I'd tell them is don't think of it as voting for Democrats, think of it as voting against conservatives. Look, anti-gay Christian conservatives have no problem holding their noses and voting for a Republican just to vote against gays or abortion.

I'm sorry that people were under the impression that we could really get this stuff done in 2 years. There are 420 bills backed up in the Senate. It's obvious to me that the Republicans were doing everything they could just to make the Democrats fail so that the progressive base would throw one of our predictable tantrums and not turn out.

I do understand. I was with the Green Party in 1996 and 2000 as I was unable to forgive Clinton. But whatever Obama hasn't done...he has not done anything so unforgivable as Clinton signing DOMA [the Federal Defense of Marriage Act].

More on the subject, from symbiote

I would tell a frustrated gay voter this: Own it! You vote. You make your choices. You allow yourself to be lied to, over and over, in a repetition of craving. It is time to look for candidates who support equality for all, and vote for them--even if they don't win. It is a natural consequence of change that the first people for whom we vote will lose.

But if continue to vote for people solely on the idea that they are "electable," then we will never build support for candidates that share our views, and thus, we ourselves destroy their "electability."

Andrew W opines further on what a voter should expect from a politician—and what they shouldn’t:

... After reflection, I would add this: tell this "democratic voter" that there is no "promise" in politics, only "hope." As in life there are no "guarantees." All we can do or expect is our best efforts. The idea that politicians have "let us down" is not the exception, it is the rule. We should learn from that. We should understand we cannot "hire" politicians to save us - we need to do it ourselves.

Politicians are motivated by their constituents beliefs - it is what gets them elected. That is OUR job - changing minds. Instead of expecting politicians to handle the job, we should simply do it ourselves. We've spent 40 years betting on politics and we have little to show for it. That should make all of us think twice about continuing to believe "somebody else" will save us. Our equality is our responsibility...

... Our only political hope is targeting a few States where public opinion could change enough to turn the tide. Senators will either reflect the views of their constituents or they will be replaced. We need to change those views.

An additional question I had for the “focus group” was what you say to voters who do not differentiate between “the Democrats” or “Congress” and supportive and unsupportive legislators?

Here’s what Tim W’s thinking:

I would tell them the same thing I have said many other times. If the Democrat is a true ally in actions and not in words then they deserve our vote. If not I will be voting for someone who is. We are where we are because the Democrats feel we have no where else to turn to. The politics of fear that we aren't as bad as the Republicans doesn't cut it anymore...So the old scare tactics don't work. Democrats need to be held responsible for their actions.
We definitely should not be giving money to the DNC [Democratic National Committee], DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee], OFA [Organizing for America, the Barack Obama campaign’s “legacy” organization], or the newest branch of the Democratic Party the HRC [Human Rights Campaign, a pro-civil rights group]. That money is being wasted to elect the Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincolns of the world. Give money to candidates that are pro-gay be it Dem, Rep, or Green.

Bolton Winpenny offers another perspective:

I recently started publicizing the idea to stop supporting democrats that don't support us...While I understand the risk of giving republican's power, I don't think we have much gain that warrants a large risk. This conversation, along with the Get Equal campaign, "We'll Give when we Get" and other similar sentiments makes a big statement that the Democrats will hopefully listen to...Things are changing in the Republicans where they seem more interested in anti-abortion and anti-Christian than they are anti-gay...

What does work is spreading awareness and education... Shortly after LGBT Freedom Week 2010 a PA [Pennsylvania] senate subcommittee voted down 8 to 6 (tabled) a move to add "one man and one woman" into our constitution. Two years prior, the same committee, with only one member change, passed a similar bill 4 to 10.... Four votes changed after a state-wide campaign to spread awareness and education over the LGBT plight for equality.

Bill Perdue would tell you that, in some instances, you just won’t find any supportive legislators:

If they're in unions or one of the other struggle movements they should be encouraged to break with the Democrats and move left.

Their real incentives come from corporations so we have to provide an counterbalance of mass movements and mass demonstrations to get concessions. When the profit margin hits the fan, as it does in the case of ENDA [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and equal wages, expect no concessions.

Still another topic from the group: what’s to come after this election?

Deena has a theory:

Bielat will defeat Barney Frank and Pelosi will no longer be speaker of the house when Republicans win the majority. In one sense that will be tragic yet in another it will set the tone for 2012 when progress can be made. I think it is the best change in recent history because the house will know lip service is what it has always been -- BS. Obama will also have to pay attention or he is toast in 2012.

As does Bill Perdue:

The next anti-incumbent Congress will do no better than the last anti-incumbent Congress and in 2012 the Republicans will suffer for it. They're as rancid and rightwing as their Dem cousins and even less popular, because they don't bother lying about it...

And now: a point of personal privilege.

I have kept my opinions out of this discussion, because it really wasn’t about me, but as we close out this conversation—and the election cycle—I am going to tell you that there was one comment that struck me as being the closest to what I might say if I was a voter in this situation; it comes from John Rutledge, and it required no editing at all:

I have been in the same angry place as the writer before and will likely be again. After all, this is personal. This is our lives.
I just read the Obama interview in the Rolling Stone. I hear a brilliant mind, fair and balanced. Possibility is alive, like never before. It is also close to passing us by with the upcoming elections. Now is not the time to indulge in wallowing. I now this fight is tough, but we just can not give up. We have to continue to push. Being resigned and cynical is only being that. It makes one useless to bring about change. So choose. Go home and bitch to whoever is willing to listen, be ineffectively righteous, or suck it up and get in the game. Grow or blow.

Finally, as I promised, we’ll wrap all this up with a comment from Congressman Patrick Murphy (PA-08), who has been absolutely supportive of advancing civil rights for LBGT citizens, despite the fact that he’s a freshman in Pennsylvania, which kind of makes him “double vulnerable”.

I managed to catch up with Murphy on a live chat at Bilerico, where I asked him what he would tell voters who see Democrats as unreliable partners and don’t recognize that some Members are more supportive than others.

We’ll close out this conversation by giving him the last word on the subject:

...Some of you have brought this up today and I couldn't agree more. The far-right wing and hate mongerers are coming at me with everything they have because they know that if they knock me off, no member in a tough district will stick their neck out for DADT or other LGBT issues for years. I need your help to win this thing and show these guys that we won't back down from doing what's right.

Comments

...to produce these two stories, and i find the "vote" argument far more persuasive than the "stay home" argument.

it's tougher to consider the voters who will vote green for good reasons. in the end, i might be inclined to vote anti-republican, if i didn't have available a compelling candidate for whom i'd rather vote.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

but in part one we discussed how this sort of came up and caught me by surprise; this because i'm not gay and i also didn't have any real handle on how widespread this was, nor a sense of how deep the discontent might really run.

having conducted this little focus group exercise, i'd suggest that the democratic party establishment is also not fully aware of what's going on here.

i'd also suggest that you could do this with other democratic constituencies, and you might well achieve the same results; this could help explain a big part of what "enthusiasm gap" might exist as well as why democrats are on the defensive today, and not republicans.

and just to close out the thought: you can look back over the past 30 years or so and see any number of examples of the democratic party not understanding their voter base, to their later dismay; i'd like to see democrats come out of this cycle not so badly off as many think, with a way to reengage with their core voting blocs and a plan to move forward with a legislative agenda.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Case study: Wake County School Board taken over by nutjobs last year. The sanity backlash may actually increase the Democratic majority on the Wake Board of Commissioners this year.

So yeah. I'm punishing those who have failed to deliver even the most basic stuff (DADT repeal or just freakin' keeping LGBT issues in the sainted health care "reform" bill) when they've have plenty of power to do it.

I've lived through the likes of Reagan and the rise of the Falwell's moral majority. Sarah Palin doesn't scare me.

I'll support the likes of Patrick Murphy -- a true champion and ally. There may be a dozen of those in Congress.

For you to imply that the whole of the Democratic caucus deserves our support because Patrick Murphy is in it...well, that's insane.

The spineless Congressional leadership (the House won't stand up to the Senate, the Senate won't stand up for anything) doesn't deserve a damn thing.

When Congress starts to deliver results, they can ask for my vote (and money and time) again.

as it happened, i had been talking to another democratic member of congress' press secretary who did not follow through with a comment, and by coincidence i ran into murphy on a live chat at bilerico and got to ask him that question.

he got the last word because he's a member of congress who answered my question directly, and i very much appreciated that.

even though the General Assembly delivered a bill on LGBT equality (anti-bully bill, which is so important given the recent rash of suicides), and that even though Elaine Marshall has championed equality in a way no US Senate candidate from NC ever has, that many LGBT voters are so turned off that they wont vote, or will actively cast punishment votes.

I fear that the GOP will take the state Senate, pass a constitutional marriage-discrimination amendment, and redistrict in such a way that there is no hope of change for another decade.

"...It's a fool's errand to believe that participation in a rigged electoral system is the way to change. It's the road to perpetual lesserevilism, betrayal and defeat."

and the attitude it represents.

For one thing, single issue voters are just arrogant and short-sighted. Yes, that issue may be the most important thing in the world to that person, and it even may be the most important issue in that election at that time, but not voting in this election assures victory for people who will do far more than damage that one issue.

Children who now have healthcare will lose it.
Women who now have choice likely will lose a lot of it.
Tax policy will be set in an ignorant and ultimately economically destructive way.

And more to the speaker's point, redistricting lines will be drawn in favor of people who hate him. Not people who frustratingly dilly dally with court motions when Presidential Directives would do. People who want him dead.

To this voter, I ask whether, if you were in a car driven by a guy who listens to you, but isn't doing everything you want as quickly as you want, are you going to shoot the driver and hope the car keeps going on its own? Does the fact that two steamrollers are behind you and semi trucks are on either side change your mind?

And before someone starts quoting the Letter from a Birmingham Jail at me, understand that I am not arguing for a go slow approach to civil rights for anyone. I am not claiming that the Administration is right.

But while Martin Luther King was frustrated by the comments of white ministers that he was moving too fast, and was frustrated by the pace of change in the Kennedy Administration, I am pretty certain he would never have counseled sitting an election out, or voting for Lester Maddox.

Protest nonvotes are nothing more than an abdication of responsibility. It says - "I am more important than society. My issue matters more."

Guess what? It doesn't. Like every other issue, it is one of a myriad of things to be considered.

Protest votes gave us George W. Bush. The people quoted above may want to see what happened in Florida in 2000, and the ultimate cost of thost 100,000 protest votes for Ralph Nader by people who thought they were too cool for the two party system.

As noted earlier, the Senate considers itself to be a “continuing body.” This is because (1) the Constitution provides for overlapping Senate terms by which only one-third of the seats can theoretically turnover in each election (and therefore, two-thirds of the Senate continues to serve with no interruption), and (2) the number of Senators continuing their service exceeds the number constitutionally required (a simply majority) for a quorum. Thus, there is no point at the beginning of a new Congress at which the Senate could be said to lack the possibility of a quorum
for processing chamber business.

This principle has been interpreted to imply that the Senate is continuously organized across Congresses, as well. In other words, Senate rules continue to apply across Congresses with no action necessary from the body to re-adopt them. The Senate did not readopt its rules at the beginning of the 2nd Congress (1791-1792) and standing rules changes have always been accomplished in the context of the procedures and precedents established by the standing rules as they existed at the time. In 1959, the Senate explicitly incorporated this understanding into the standing rules, which state, “The Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next
Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules” (Rule V, paragraph 2).

(all members of the house are reelected every two years, therefore there are no continuing members, and the incoming house adopts a new set of rules with every new congress)

if you live by these rules (and there are proposals that would try to ignore this for the purposes of making changes), then you're stuck with having to get 67 votes to change senate rules; in this environment you can probably see the problems with that approach.

but since you asked "what went wrong?"...i have a theory:

i think obama failed to sell health care, loudly and from the bully pulpit, in the march-august '09 time frame, in a way that would drag reluctant senators to "go along with the program", like it or not.

instead, he sent that sucker to senate finance for three months, and it got lobbied and "town meetinged" into the current watered-down form with no counter influence coming from the white house.

that taught republicans that they could use obstructionism to great effect...and here we are.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

In the past several Congresses, there has been increased discussion of what recently has been called by some a “nuclear” parliamentary option to end debate and vote. Under such a scenario, the chair, perhaps occupied by the Vice President serving as presiding officer or by the President pro tempore of the Senate, would set aside the existing provisions of Rule XXII and rule that cloture could be invoked by simple majority vote. Supporters of such an approach argue that if such a ruling were appealed by opponents or submitted to the Senate for decision, and then sustained by a majority vote, debate would end and the pending business could then be brought to
a vote.

In another version of this scenario, a Senator might raise a constitutional point of order against the decision that cloture had not been invoked on a matter, and the same end achieved if the point of order were sustained by a majority vote of Senators. Supporters argue that this proceeding would be permissible because under the Constitution, the Senate has the express right to make, or change, the rules of its proceedings at any time. This has led some Senators to call this scenario the “constitutional option.” Under Senate precedents, however, constitutional questions are to be submitted to a vote of the full chamber for decision;13 therefore, the chair also would have to act in contravention of the precedent that constitutional questions are submitted to the Senate (or the rule that submitted questions are debatable), perhaps by stating that the body has a right to “get to the question” at hand.

In the 108th and 109th Congresses, the focus of such proposals was on certain judicial
nominations, not on other business. Those concerned about filibusters on these questions in particular argued that the inability of the Senate to reach a final vote on a nomination represented an abdication of the Senate’s duty to perform a constitutional duty, that of advising and consenting to nominations. In the current context (as well as in some historical ones), these proposals are often intended to apply to all debatable questions, or, in some cases, at least to questions in relation to a rules change at the start of a new Congress.

Opponents have used the term nuclear to describe these scenarios, in part because they rely on steps that would violate existing rules or precedents, or both, but also because of the belief that their use would destroy the comity and senatorial courtesy necessary in a body that operates overwhelmingly by unanimous consent. They further argue that such an approach might destroy the unique character of the Senate itself, making it more like the House of Representatives, where a majority has the ability to halt debate any time it wishes.

Observers point out that such a parliamentary proceeding is not unprecedented. On several occasions, Vice Presidents acting as the presiding officer (including Vice Presidents Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller) offered advisory opinions from the chair that the provisions of Rule XXII can be changed by a majority vote of the Senate at the beginning of a Congress. In 1975, a ruling to this effect, submitted to the chamber by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sustained by a vote of the Senate. The Senate later reversed itself by recorded vote, but whether this obliterated the precedent permitting cloture by majority vote has been a source of disagreement. For example, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the architect of the 1975 cloture amendment, observed that the reversal vote “erased the precedent of majority cloture established two weeks before, and reaffirmed the ‘continuous’ nature of Senate rules.” Others argued that such a precedent was established and was not overturned. Senator Walter F. Mondale observed, “... the Rule XXII experience was significant because for the first time in history, a Vice President and a clear majority of the Senate established that the Senate may, at the beginning of a new
Congress and unencumbered by the rules of previous Senates, adopt its own rules by majority vote as a constitutional right. The last minute votes attempting to undo that precedent in no way undermine that right.”

this footnote is also worth your attention:

S.Res. 396, submitted in the 111th Congress, seeks to address this issue and provide that Senate rules do not automatically apply on the first day of a new Congress. To provide for a rules change outside the operation of the current rules allowing extended debate on such a question, the resolution presumes expiration of the current standing rules (but does not seem to provide a mechanism to implement or cause their expiration). The resolution does not appear to provide a mechanism by which the Senate would end debate on a rules change.

...so at a minimum, it is highly questionable as to what could be done from the chair and what can't--and you'll note that even robert byrd himself argued for "the continuing approach" as to how senate rules work.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

nonetheless, this rule problem is part of what's going on, and simply saying "it's bull" denies the reality of how the senate works.

the reason harriet myers is not a supreme court judge today is because of the fact that republicans saw that a life of endless quorum calls would be bad for them, and they abandoned the "nuclear option" stuff themselves in the 109th congress, and ended up withdrawing her nomination.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

...is a tough one, but we sure would be looking at an even more right-wing supreme court today with a justice myers (in fact, i think of her as a "sarah palin" kind of justice...not very informed, but plenty willing to take positions), and if the senate goes r majority this time (which i don't think it will), folks on this side will be considering cloture procedures in a whole new light.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

imagine that you are a member of congress who is supportive of the agenda that we're all pursuing here (i was going to say a democratic member, but that pretty much goes without saying), and you are operating in a legislative environment that is not supportive.

what message can you send to voters that communicates to them that you're on their side, even as the party leadership isn't?

the reason i'm asking you this is because of the murphy comment: i do think if large numbers of lbgt voters withdraw support for the democrats, then democratic politicians would be more likely to move rightward on civil rights issues, since, theoretically, that's where the remaining voters will be found.

there was a considerable commentary regarding the ineffectual nature of the efforts of gay, inc., but to me there seems to be a bit of a catch-22 situation: you gain influence among members of congress by targeting money and "boots on the ground" to the right people at the right time, but doing that hasn't worked so far, but getting rid of the gay, inc, infrastructure would mean you'd need to create a new one, in order to target the money and influence you need to get things done.

so...what are your thoughts about all this?

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

i do think if large numbers of lbgt voters withdraw support for the democrats, then democratic politicians would be more likely to move rightward on civil rights issues, since, theoretically, that's where the remaining voters will be found.

I hear the voice of the DNC in your comment here.

If you move rightward away from your base, then you move back to it (to the left) to reclaim those votes.

Secondly, words are insufficient no matter who they come from. Actions matter.

Hold up your leadership's agenda until they give you what you want. Ask Bart Stupak about that.

...because i'm looking at murphy's comment to this story, and that's the implication i draw from the outcome he posits.

he's a member of congress, i've never campaigned for anything, so to me, he seems to be a bit of an expert on the subject, and that's why i'm asking the question.

the larger point is that if voters see "the democrats" or "congress" as the problem, then there is no external incentive being applied to induce members of congress, or candidates, to act in a way that advances civil rights.

let me try the question this way: you note that there are about a dozen members of congress doing the right thing right now. presumably you would like to induce other members of congress to at in a manner that duplicates the efforts of this dozen.

so...how would you approach the question of how you provide support for the dozen in a way that "incentivizes" the others?

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

as you note, a lot of support provided to a lot of members isn't getting results, but i would suggest to you that withdrawal will also send the wrong message--and as of right now, i haven't heard anyone who has suggested a "third way" that could break this logjam...and i think if this process is going to move forward that third way will have to be found.

for what it's worth, andrew w's comments about targeting certain senators makes a lot of sense, but it also seems as though we've been down that road with little success so far.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Seriously. What have (or will) the Log Cabin Republicans achieved in the realm of LGBT legislation? What rights have they secured for you? What rights do you think they might be able to secure for you, in the next hundred years?

This is the same Obama Justice Dept that hasn't prosecuted a single hate crime (like the one in Savannah I mentioned before), but finds time to defend DADT and appeal the ruling against it.

FYI: an administration doesn't have to appeal federal court rulings. Don't let any "process apologist" tell you differently. In fact, the Obama Justice Dept just decided not to appeal another case at the circuit court level just a couple weeks ago.

the reason for that is because if the administration doesn't, an intervening third party will come along and ask for permission to defend this, and they'll get it, which is also the situation with prop 8.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

...but i do truly understand why some of the people who replied to that string of comments feel that democrats are just as unwilling to advance civil rights as the rs.

put yourself in the position of someone who came into the political process in '08, possibly for the first time, because, at long last, maybe they could walk down the street and live a life just like any other citizen if we just get the democrats in there--and now, here we are, with the "change" president unwilling to really use any political capital on this issue, and the congress looking as feckless as ever...and if i've got my political analysis right, the next shot at this issue is a four month window in early 2013...which means democrats will be going to lbgt voters and asking for support, again, in '12, with doma not legislated out of existence, nor will enda be passed, and dadt will also likely still be in place...and that's not going to be an easy sales pitch.

chris rock does a joke about how ron goldman was driving around la in the car that oj bought for his ex-wife, and oj murdered him; about that chris rock says: "i don't think he should have killed him...but i understand."

to me this is a similar situation: i do hope lbgt voters see advantages to a democratically controlled congress, for all the reasons you've talked about above--but consider this: if you come to me, time after time after time, asking for support, and i back you, but you deliver nothing for me...after awhile, we're gonna "have a problem"...and i will tell you, if there's anything i learned here, it's that there is a community of lbgt voters who now have a problem with the democratic party.

...do you see anyone excusing anything?

what i am doing, time and again, is bringing facts to the table, even when they are pointing to problems that i wish i knew how to overcome, when i don't.

"change the rules, dammit" probably won't work, the lawsuits are probably doa if they get to the roberts court, the green party ain't gonna be enacting a lot of legislation any time soon...and many democrats show every indication of being as feckless as ever.

i'm looking for new ideas, but there's not a lot of new thinking that's coming to the table here--but that's not entirely surprising, if you consider that there's not really anyone, today, who has figured out how to move past this set of problems.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

He won't appeal this one, but is only too happy to appeal the rulings against DOMA and DADT?

Kiss my @ss, Obama and Justice Dept.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 6 that the Park Service's regulation forcing individuals or small groups to obtain a permit for First Amendment-protected activities was unconstitutional. But the court upheld the agency's policy of setting aside designated park areas for larger demonstrations and the sale of printed material after applicants obtained a permit.

come tuesday, somebody's gettin' elected, and somebody is going to be speaker of the house, and they are going to hold the fate of enda and doma and dadt in their hands...and if you are so correct that a speaker boehner would be a better choice in moving that agenda forward, then that's the vote (or non-vote) that you gotta make...and why don't we all meet back here in about two years and see just exactly how well that worked out?

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

...i get that you and i see this in a different way...and no worries, that's what it is.

what i don't get is why you toss in the little "oh, you're the dscc and they pay you" or "dnc code words" digs, which really bring nothing to the discussion, and, over time, drive away people you might like to ally with one day.

i make a point of being very "down the middle" about this stuff, even to the extent of posting information that supports arguments you're making in this string, and i'm not sure why you don't recognize that in a more positive way.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

right now, those who seek to advance civil rights face two unhappy options:

one, maintain alliances that haven't been effective, and hope things get better...

..or two, dismantle those alliances, leaving lbgt voters more or less alone, trying to advance the same issues, which, if history is any giude, is a low-probability option as well.

since options one and two both look like bad choices, maybe what's needed is some...oh, i don't know...some third option, that might be more successful, that, as of today, no one seems to have been promoting.

a "third way", if you will.

it appears that you're not interested in engaging in that kind of thinking, however, at least not on this page, and that's too bad, because the entire point of these stories is to engage in a dialogue that might lead to some new ideas for the reader community and to see where that might end up.

and just for the record: third way is hardly a phrase confined to clintonesque politics.

...the original string of comments, you'll notice that i asked more questions about this issue than any other...and i gotta tell ya, i'm a strategic voter by nature, which means i'll hold my nose and pick the least worst...but i do truly understand why some of the people who replied to that string of comments feel that democrats are just as unwilling to advance civil rights as the rs.

put yourself in the position of someone who came into the political process in '08, possibly for the first time, because, at long last, maybe they could walk down the street and live a life just like any other citizen if we just get the democrats in there--and now, here we are, with the "change" president unwilling to really use any political capital on this issue, and the congress looking as feckless as ever...and if i've got my political analysis right, the next shot at this issue is a four month window in early 2013...which means democrats will be going to lbgt voters and asking for support, again, in '12, with doma not legislated out of existence, nor will enda be passed, and dadt will also likely still be in place...and that's not going to be an easy sales pitch.

chris rock does a joke about how ron goldman was driving around la in the car that oj bought for his ex-wife, and oj murdered him; about that chris rock says: "i don't think he should have killed him...but i understand."

to me this is a similar situation: i do hope lbgt voters see advantages to a democratically controlled congress, for all the reasons you've talked about above--but consider this: if you come to me, time after time after time, asking for support, and i back you, but you deliver nothing for me...after awhile, we're gonna "have a problem"...and i will tell you, if there's anything i learned here, it's that there is a community of lbgt voters who now have a problem with the democratic party.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

1. LGBT folk and those in the progressive movment like to threaten the party with motivate my movement or my movement will not vote. To many folks in politics if you have to be motivated just to show up and vote you have little value to the process.

2. The Democratic parties main goal it to elect Democrats, not to promote progessive movements or LGBT causes. In order to get the party to take you seriously you have to show that following this cause will get more Democrats elected that not following this cause. Losing the votes in 2008 in California and 2009 in Maine on Marriage laws did very little to impress the party on how much political clout the LGBT voter has.

3. Too many folks in the Black community, which has alot of power in the Democratic do not consider LGBT cause "civil right" and are offended when such a charge is made. Truth of the matter is some of the loudest objections about LGBT come from certain groups of black Democrats either the LGBT needs to settle this dispute no matter how long it takes or they will always be behind the 8 ball. Just because the LGBT declares their cause a civil right does not make it so.

4. Bill Clinton was a the only Democrat to serve two terms as president for the last half of the twentieth century, as a matter of fact only FDR and Woodrow Wilson served two terms as Democrats in the twentieth century at all. This makes him admired and respected to the Democratic party, do not be so loud in your objections of him it will only cause a strain between you and the party. It is my opinion of him that I do not know what he stood for at times, but he was one of the best at knowing what the mood of the county really was, and if he did not come to your aid as much as you wished it was because he did not the politcal value in your cause.

5. Obama the progessive movement and LGBT took their eye of the ball for the last two years and they are going to pay for badly next week. The most imprtant issue for the last two years has been jobs. Not health care, not immigration, and not LGBT, it has been jobs, and the unemployment rate is around 9.8% for two years. Also companies have frozen raises, cut hours, reduced benefits and the morale in the work place is very low for those of us who still have them. Until this issues is solved all the other issues are meaninless to most voters.

Tweets about BlueNC

NC blogs

BlueNC is a labor of love. Views expressed by any particular community member are simply that: the views of that particular member. If you have questions or concerns about the content you see here, please contact us.